MILLHOUSE & MILLHOUSE

[2011] FamCA 820

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MILLHOUSE & MILLHOUSE [2011] FamCA 820

FAMILY LAW – CHIILDREN: - CONSENT ORDERS – Interim Orders made for the children to spend time with their father pending outcome of final hearing

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
APPLICANT:	Mr Millhouse

RESPONDENT: Ms Millhouse

FILE NUMBER: HBF 1013 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 11 October 2011

PLACE DELIVERED: Hobart

PLACE HEARD: Chambers

JUDGMENT OF: Benjamin J

HEARING DATE: 11 October 2011

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Mussared

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Legal Aid Commission

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Rofe

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Wallace Wilkinson & Webster

COUNSEL FOR THE
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER Mrs Mooney

Orders

1. Orders be made in accordance with the minute of consent order signed by the parties initialled by me and dated 7 October 2011, an engrossed copy attached hereto and marked Exhibit “1”.

2. Pursuant to s.65DA(2) and s.62B, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.

   IT IS CERTIFIED

3. Pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 it was reasonable to engage counsel to attend.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Millhouse & Millhouse has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA  AT CAIRNS

FILE NUMBER:  HBF1013/2010

Mr Millhouse

Applicant

And

Ms Millhouse

Respondent

And

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Mr Millhouse and Ms Millhouse are engaged in litigation in respect of the parenting of their children G aged six, B aged five and C aged eight.

2. The proceedings are listed for final hearing before me during commencing
   17 October 2011.

3. The Independent Children’s Lawyer and the lawyer for each of the parties have asked that the Court make interim orders pending the hearing and pending the twelve week period it normally takes to deliver reasons.

4. The consideration of this application is made in chambers and having regard to the notations in the orders, the report from the Department of Health and Human Services (Magellan report dated 1 April 2011), a Family Report of Ms D dated 10 March 2011 and a psychological report by Dr E (a clinical psychologist) annexed to his affidavit affirmed 17 August 2011.

5. These proceedings are Magellan Proceedings and the factual bases set out in the various reports are very much in issue.

6. In terms of the report from the Department of Health and Human Services (“Child Protection Services “) they have investigated four notifications with regard to allegations that one of the children may have been the subject of sexual abuse, the police have conducted two forms of interviews and the Royal Hobart Hospital conducted a medical examination.  The children are engaged with F House and appear to be settled, happy and well adjusted.  The Child Protection Service did not speak to the father.  The Child Protection Service is satisfied that G is settled in school.

7. The Child Protection Service advised in April 2007 that they were closing their current notification as the concerns do not reach the threshold for intervention and the family are receiving appropriate support from various services.

8. Ms D (“the Family Consultant”) in her report makes recommendations for the children to see their father on a supervised basis if the Court finds the children are at risk of sexual abuse in their father’s care.

9. She hypothesises a much broader time the children spend with their father in the event that there is no finding of sexual abuse.

10. Dr E asserts that neither party appears to suffer from any significant mental health disorder and notes that the mother’s recollection of the events have remained consistent.  Dr E’s opinion is that there is a high likelihood of what the mother is alleging the child G to have reported to her has occurred, and is reasonably accurate.

11. This evidence, of course, is untested and is in issue.

12. The interim orders proposed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer are in the form suggested by the Family Consultant in the event that there was a finding of unacceptable risk.

13. Without making any findings I am prepared to put those interim orders in place pending final determination of these proceedings.

I certify that the preceding 13 paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Benjamin delivered on 11 October 2011.

Associate:

Date:              11 October 2011.